Why proposed laws on hate speech may be put on ice ahead of summer elections

Hate-speech laws look increasingly likely to be kicked down the road as politicians struggle to allay public concerns. Already shelved is an innocuous referendum, due to run with the local and European elections on June 7, on allowing Ireland join the EU patent court. A potential vote about a directly elected mayor of Dublin has also been put on ice.

New Taoiseach Simon Harris and his fellow coalition party leaders continue to insist future RTÉ funding will be decided before the summer recess. If it happens at all, it will not involve a hefty charge for the public – new taxes before election time are a complete non-starter, and a sticking-plaster funding remedy is more likely.

Decisions on the future of hatespeech legislation and proposed laws on extended bar opening hours were also expected in the coming weeks. But nobody should hold their breath here either – the to-do list for the next government, of whatever hue, can only grow.

But be assured that the Taoiseach, and new Fine Gael leader, will honour promises to travel to every constituency in the country before the local and European elections, seven weeks from this Friday.

Mr Harris is not alone here, since all parties are now in election mode, with eyes on the general election due in a maximum of 11 months.

Mr Harris prides himself as someone who can gauge the public mood and notes a rising sense of unease about the planned hate-speech bill. Like on some other issues, he was once an unequivocal supporter of such laws, but now he speaks of the need for humility and the ability to listen.

Again, he is by no means unique here and the Irish Independent has logged Sinn Féin’s zigzagging on the topic. And, hands up, this issue is not easy – many people are concerned about hate-offences legislation in general, and the potential for abuses.

An example frequently cited dates from 2015 in France, when 12 Palestinian activists were convicted for inciting “discrimination, hatred or violence towards a person or group of people on grounds of their origin, their belonging or their not belonging to an ethnic group, a nation, a race or a certain religion”.

In fact, they had collected Israeli goods into supermarket trolleys and handed shoppers leaflets urging a boycott because of incidents in Gaza and the West Bank.

At the same time, it was noted that Russia had backed the idea of incorporating anti-hate speech measures into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In Ireland’s case, the fear is that key terms such as “hatred” and “inciting hatred” are not defined in the proposed legislation. It appears to be one of those concepts of which we know what we expect, and probably know it when we see it.

In practice, hatred is something which becomes criminal only when it results in harm to others. The intent to cause such resultant harm must also be an issue. Section 10 of the draft law, as it stands, states it will be unlawful just to possess material that could incite hatred, even if it has not been communicated to the public.

People Before Profit TD Paul Murphy evokes the ghost of George Orwell by contending that this creates an offence of “thought crime”.

It is notable also that there is a reverse legal onus here, with the accused obliged to prove he or she did not intend to distribute this hateful material.

The case of our Celtic cousins in Scotland is also well worth noting too. On April 1, without any ironic suggestions, the Scottish parliament replaced its ancient and little-used anti-blasphemy law with a new anti-hate speech law. It may serve as a warning to Ireland.

Nobody can or should condone hatred of any of the groups protected by anti-hate speech laws, much less intimidation or incitement to acts of violence. Protections extend on grounds of race, colour, nationality, religion, national or ethnic origin, descent, gender, sexual orientation and disability. But to return to George Orwell, and paraphrase his 1945 classic Animal Farm, no one group should be accorded more equality or protection than another.

There is a worry about the arguments of moderate people urging the authorities to proceed cautiously with gender transition for children being drowned out as more ardent voices strike a louder volume.

It smacks of repeating elements of past blasphemy laws, which gave no protection to dissenters who were dubbed “heretics”.

Maybe it will do good to wait on this until after a general election.

‘Mr Harris prides himself as someone who can gauge the public mood and notes a rising sense of unease’